In hindsight, Indiana going for Obama isn't that shocking

[pragmatic liberal]

Indiana has a longstanding reputation as a Republican bastion. It's a reputation that is well earned. In 2000, Bush beat Al Gore 57-42. In 2004, he beat John Kerry 60-39.

Yet in November of this year, in a development few would have foreseen less than a year earlier, Indiana went Democratic, voting for Barack Obama by a 50-49 margin. Indiana's swing was the largest one in the country except for Hawaii.

Yet in hindsight, the fact that Indiana went to Obama shouldn't be that surprising. Let's deconstruct the numbers:

In 2000, Bush got 57 points in Indiana versus 48 points nationally, meaning Indiana in 2000 was R +9.

In 2004, Bush got 60 points in Indiana versus 51 points nationally, meaning Indiana was against R +9.

This year, McCain got 49 points in Indiana and about 46 points nationally, meaning Indiana was R +3.

For Indiana to fall from +9 to +3 isn't really that odd. Consider the following:

* Democrats haven't seriously contested the presidential race in Indiana since 1948. At least some of the Republicans' lopsided margins came from the fact that the Democratic vote in Indiana was completely un-mobilized. Indeed, Indiana historically had one of the lowest turnouts during presidential years. It isn't unreasonable to wonder if the real Republican lean in Indiana has historically been somewhat less than R +9; with better Democratic turnout it would probably have been R +5 or R +6.

* For Obama to reduce that from R+5 to R+3 is very easy to see, given the conditions of 2008:

- A terrible local economy that has been in recession for much of the past year.

- An increasingly unpopular war and a lot of "bring them home" sentiment in a state with a large number of men and women in uniform.

- A Republican campaign that never enthused the Republican base.

- A Democratic candidate who hailed from the Mid-West. (Hoosiers are fairly parochial; they're distrustful of coastal types and easterners but in much of Central and Northern Indiana they're also a little disdainful of Southerners.)

- An extremely intense Democratic GOTV campaign; the Republicans had nothing, hoping to call a bluff.

- The "southernification" of the GOP: though Indiana is conservative, it's a more tempered conservativism than the evangelical-infused populist conservatism of the South. Indiana is largely mainline Protestant and Catholic and the archetypal Indiana Republican is Dick Lugar. There's a big continent of main-street conservatives in the state, many of whom may still tend to vote Republican but voted Democratic this year over the war and fiscal issues. And though the culture wars are at play here, they aren't quite as intense in Indiana as they are in the South.

Given all those factors, it's not hard to see how the state could go from, say, a natural +5 Republican tilt to a +3 Republican tilt.

I'll add a point I've made elsewhere: in terms of political geography, political culture, and demographics, the state Indiana most resembles is Ohio.

The regions of the state break down similarly to Ohio's: Southern Indiana, like Southern Ohio, is much like Appalachia and Kentucky; Central Indiana is similar to Central Ohio; and Northern Indiana is a little bit like Northern Ohio, with a big Democratic vote bank in the Lake Michigan region.

In terms of their presidential votes, Ohio and Indiana correlated pretty strongly for much of history. In fact, Ohio actually voted more Republican than Indiana as late as 1952. If you look back at election results, the first major divergence between Indiana and Ohio occurred in 1964: Goldwater did 7 points better in Indiana than in Ohio (44% of the vote in Indiana, 37% in Ohio). In 1968, continuing the trend, Nixon did 5 points better in Indiana than Ohio (45% in Ohio, 50% in Indiana).

If Ohio -- which is a relatively conservative state -- can regularly be a swing state, there's no reason Indiana can't be an at least occasional swing state.

I don't doubt that Indiana is a Republican-leaning state; in most elections, it'll go Republican. But I think Obama showed that it was a mistake Democrats conceded the state for so long. Under the right conditions and with the right candidate, Indiana can sometimes be won by a Democrat.

[pragmatic liberal]

I just can't believe he won Indiana and North Carolina, but not Missouri or West Virginia.

Missouri and West Virginia are states that are trending away from the Democratic Presidential Candidate since at least 1988. Dukakis and Clinton in '92 for example did better in MO & WV than they did nationally.

MO:

1988: 3.7% more DEM
1992: 4.7% more DEM
1996: 2.2% more GOP
2000: 3.8% more GOP
2004: 4.7% more GOP
2008: 7.4% more GOP

WV:

1988: 12.4% more DEM
1992: 7.5% more DEM
1996: 6.2% more DEM
2000: 6.8% more GOP
2004: 10.5% more GOP
2008: 20.4% more GOP

I only find it interesting that Obama didn't win MO by a slight margin, after his 100.000+ crowds in St. Louis ...

Missouri has enough of an urban and suburban population that I suspect it will stay a contested state. It's definitely a lean-GOP state, but given the right Democratic candidate, it can be won. After all, Obama only lost it by 3000 votes - he almost certainly would have won it if Missouri had early voting like most other states did. Obama will probably carry Missouri if he's the favorite for reelection. And Clinton would likely have won the state - Missouri is one of the states, where I suspect racism may actually have cost Obama the state.

W.V., OTOH, I think is largely lost. It may still be in play in certain elections, based on the candidate and the conditions, but the influence of the religious right is just too strong and the cultural distance is simply too great from the increasingly yuppified-and-minority Democratic base.

[pragmatic liberal]

I just can't believe he won Indiana and North Carolina, but not Missouri or West Virginia.

Missouri and West Virginia are states that are trending away from the Democratic Presidential Candidate since at least 1988. Dukakis and Clinton in '92 for example did better in MO & WV than they did nationally.

MO:

1988: 3.7% more DEM
1992: 4.7% more DEM
1996: 2.2% more GOP
2000: 3.8% more GOP
2004: 4.7% more GOP
2008: 7.4% more GOP

WV:

1988: 12.4% more DEM
1992: 7.5% more DEM
1996: 6.2% more DEM
2000: 6.8% more GOP
2004: 10.5% more GOP
2008: 20.4% more GOP

I only find it interesting that Obama didn't win MO by a slight margin, after his 100.000+ crowds in St. Louis ...

Also, this somewhat depends on how you define "more D" and "more R." You're defining it by margin. If you define it by simply comparing, say, the Republican vote share in the state with the Republican vote share nationally, the results are slightly less jarring, but still illustrate the point, I guess.

For example, in Missouri:

1988: D+2 (MO: Dukakis 48; US: Dukakis 46)
1992: D+1 (MO: Clinton 44; US: Clinton 43)
1996: R+0.5 (MO: Dole 41.2; US: Dole 40.7)
2000: R+2 (MO: Bush 50; US: Bush 48)
2004: R+2 (MO: Bush 53; US: Bush 51)
2008: R+3 (MO: McCain 49; US: McCain 46)

In W.V.:

1988: D+6 (WV: Dukakis 52; US: Dukakis 46)
1992: D+5 (WV: Clinton 48; US: Clinton 43)
1996: D+1.3 (WV: Clinton 51.5; US: Clinton 49.2)
2000: R+4 (WV: Bush 52; US: Bush 48)
2004: R+5 (WV: Bush 56; US: Bush 51)
2008: R+10 (WV: McCain 56; US: McCain 46)